MD/DO vs ND

[Didierdrogba]

Someone say holistic?

Being from the Northwest, where naturopathy and hippies are rampant, i LOLed

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mr Kenobi]

So Specter kinda hinted on nutrition as more of an afterthought to illness- mainly because our healthcare system treats illness and using preventative measures to cure it is stupid. The healthcare system is a business and doctors are money makers, I understand this. What exactly do preventative med docs do? Will ACA help at all with making doctors in the business of health rather than treaters of illness? This has nothing to do with ND - they're quacks, I just want to have a discussion about medicine.

You deserve one

 

[hallowmann]

Being from the Northwest, where naturopathy and hippies are rampant, i LOLed

Are they that rampant? I guess anywhere out west will have lots of hippies.

 

[NontradCA]

You deserve one

Close minded much?

 

[Mr Kenobi]

It was intended to mean I liked your post. Lol butthurt much

 

[hallowmann]

It was intended to mean I liked your post. Lol

I guess he hasn't seen your recent posts in the "Thinking about DOs" thread.

 

[NontradCA]

It was intended to mean I liked your post. Lol butthurt much

Oh ok sorry. Just that most people on here don't know what they're getting themselves into. I'm not so sure there's anything physicians can really do to change the system. A lot of pre meds seem to think we're going to be healing people. If you're an orthopedics surgeon and you fix some guys knee, that's awesome. But in primary specialties its like what are you really doing?

 

[hallowmann]

Oh ok sorry. Just that most people on here don't know what they're getting themselves into. I'm not so sure there's anything physicians can really do to change the system. A lot of pre meds seem to think we're going to be healing people. If you're an orthopedics surgeon and you fix some guys knee, that's awesome. But in primary specialties its like what are you really doing?

Treat and street.

Preventative medicine is something we really need to invest more into. I think maybe the best way would be education through those primary care docs. The only problem is that they are valued so low that they have to see 50 patients a day to really make money, so there really isn't time for education from PCPs. I'm not really sure how the system will get fixed.

 

[Goro]

I love it when you guys do my work for me!

this should sum it up for you

[YOUTUBE]HMGIbOGu8q0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[NontradCA]

Treat and street.

Preventative medicine is something we really need to invest more into. I think maybe the best way would be education through those primary care docs. The only problem is that they are valued so low that they have to see 50 patients a day to really make money, so there really isn't time for education from PCPs. I'm not really sure how the system will get fixed.

What kinds of opportunities are there in preventative medicine for MD/DOs?

 

[SpecterGT260]

So Specter kinda hinted on nutrition as more of an afterthought to illness- mainly because our healthcare system treats illness and using preventative measures to cure it is stupid. The healthcare system is a business and doctors are money makers, I understand this. What exactly do preventative med docs do? Will ACA help at all with making doctors in the business of health rather than treaters of illness? This has nothing to do with ND - they're quacks, I just want to have a discussion about medicine.

I didn't mean to imply that prevention is either a bad thing or that it is somehow unnecessary. My point was that the umbrella of "prevention" has grown to include overtly common-sense things which these alternative practitioners are peddling at significant costs. Furthermore, any doctor worth his salt is already promoting prevention. The problem is that Big Joe Higgins down the road doesn't wanna hear that he needs to get off his fat ass and is much more seduced by the alternativists promise of "eat this grass and drink this "used to have something in it" water and that pain in your lower back will go away!".

Why *should* it be the physicians job to promote "health", in the way you imply? I think physicians should be in the practice of correcting someone's health when things go wrong, but otherwise it is on the individual to maintain their own health. This point of view actually (and ironically) agrees with the alternative nonsense of "your body is capable of being healthy" without the added nonsense of 'but evil chemicals and preservatives and spine crookednesses have interfered with your body's inner kama sutra of health". I say "ironically", because this is the "correct" interpretation of their fundamental belief. i.e. "your body IS in fact capable of being healthy... but you went and screwed it up, ya *******!" This is just a reflection on the fact that I really dislike the burgeoning meaning of the word "health" and its insistence upon being distinct from "healthcare".

In a nutshell, people need to be responsible for themselves. Our system is too taxed as it is with people who not only need help, but also aren't directly responsible for their own condition (although the ratio favors the other group...). Physicians should (and do) educate people on how to stay healthy, either when seeing a patient on a checkup or after fixing whatever went wrong to bring the patient in in the first place. That's the job. As I noted earlier, its the false and inflated promises of alternativists that make what physicians do falsely look to be not "maintenance of health".

I grew up near farms that had issues with Monsanto. People around those parts hate them because they will sue you and extend the lawsuit until you run out of money for litigation. In some places, it becomes either buy our seeds or we'll put you out of business.


My worries with Monsanto is the possibility that if they take over too much of the crop market, one mutation that kills their crop would wipe out a huge amount of food since the seeds are all clones of each other.

How?

I'm not aware of monsanto actually filing a suit for farmers allegedly having some engineer pieces in their crop (as if they would even reasonably have the means to discern this....), and there is no way they could force you to buy their product.... These things were addressed in the NPR article I posted, and that source is arguably not swinging way to right field if you know what I mean.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Treat and street.

Preventative medicine is something we really need to invest more into. I think maybe the best way would be education through those primary care docs. The only problem is that they are valued so low that they have to see 50 patients a day to really make money, so there really isn't time for education from PCPs. I'm not really sure how the system will get fixed.

I would agree, but what makes you think this isn't already happening? The few times I have been in primary care clinics, the docs actually spend more time educating than they do anything else. The patients' eyes just glaze over with this "Ya yaya I've heard it before, doc" look. Most illnesses in the primary care setting are chronic anyways so it isn't like you are spending all of your time reliving all of the best scenes from Grey's Anatomy. It's really hard to get someone to change a behavior in a way that requires them to do any work when the action and the outcome are not immediately (i.e. acutely) linked in time.

I am still going with the notion that people just don't like what they hear. They treat doctors as "pill pushers", equate that with a lack of preventative care, and then ironically go to their shaman or whatever to suck down some "herbal" which (again, remember this is ironic) is in pill form!

It is very hard to fight people being people.

 

[Skeeks]

Oh ok sorry. Just that most people on here don't know what they're getting themselves into. I'm not so sure there's anything physicians can really do to change the system. A lot of pre meds seem to think we're going to be healing people. If you're an orthopedics surgeon and you fix some guys knee, that's awesome. But in primary specialties its like what are you really doing?

You should read the book How Doctors Think. There is a great section on PCP and how its actually the most difficult area of medicine both intelectually and in terms of stress. PCP are expected to know a decent amount about everything. The more specialized you become the more narrow your scope of practice is and the less complicated the diagnosis and treatment become because patients often come with a working diagnosis or suspect problem. The primary care physician is required to interpret vague and often contridictory patient self reports and determine what tests of thousands to perform and how to treat the patient.
Its much better stated by the author (an oncologist himself), but you get my drift.

 

[hallowmann]

I would agree, but what makes you think this isn't already happening? The few times I have been in primary care clinics, the docs actually spend more time educating than they do anything else. The patients' eyes just glaze over with this "Ya yaya I've heard it before, doc" look. Most illnesses in the primary care setting are chronic anyways so it isn't like you are spending all of your time reliving all of the best scenes from Grey's Anatomy. It's really hard to get someone to change a behavior in a way that requires them to do any work when the action and the outcome are not immediately (i.e. acutely) linked in time.

I am still going with the notion that people just don't like what they hear. They treat doctors as "pill pushers", equate that with a lack of preventative care, and then ironically go to their shaman or whatever to suck down some "herbal" which (again, remember this is ironic) is in pill form!

It is very hard to fight people being people.

I'm sure it is happening, and you're right that's most of the time spent by PCPs. My guess is there needs to be either a more standardized way of doing it, or a different method that's more effective.

Of course its hard to get people to change, but some people do. The question is what is different in those instances. Maybe something is described in a way that directly affects them, so they are more receptive to it. Maybe its repeated both at home and at the hospital enough that it has an effect. That's more of what I mean by more focus.

Its hard to change people who don't want to change, but I know a lot of people that changed when making that change was made even the slightest bit easier by someone else. Obviously those people had at least some interest to change, but up until that point didn't/couldn't.

 

[NontradCA]

I would agree, but what makes you think this isn't already happening? The few times I have been in primary care clinics, the docs actually spend more time educating than they do anything else. The patients' eyes just glaze over with this "Ya yaya I've heard it before, doc" look. Most illnesses in the primary care setting are chronic anyways so it isn't like you are spending all of your time reliving all of the best scenes from Grey's Anatomy. It's really hard to get someone to change a behavior in a way that requires them to do any work when the action and the outcome are not immediately (i.e. acutely) linked in time.

I am still going with the notion that people just don't like what they hear. They treat doctors as "pill pushers", equate that with a lack of preventative care, and then ironically go to their shaman or whatever to suck down some "herbal" which (again, remember this is ironic) is in pill form!

It is very hard to fight people being people.

Yes a lot of education comes with managing a chronic illness. I'm just saying that the patient presents to the PCP with it already. The system revolves around treating an illness sure but there's also the fact it's a money making machine. Hospitals push the screening for illnesses that are somewhat common and more importantly a higher yielding of treatments. This is not "big and bad", its just money. Now the ACA is trying to change and overhaul this. I think it affects physicians because hospitals see them as cash cows.

 

[hallowmann]

Yes a lot of education comes with managing a chronic illness. I'm just saying that the patient presents to the PCP with it already. The system revolves around treating an illness sure but there's also the fact it's a money making machine. Hospitals push the screening for illnesses that are somewhat common and more importantly a higher yielding of treatments. This is not "big and bad", its just money. Now the ACA is trying to change and overhaul this. I think it affects physicians because hospitals see them as cash cows.

I'd like to see the PCP reimbursements increase with the PPACA. Supposedly they will increase by 4-7%, but I'm waiting to see the results before I pass judgement. I don't know if its enough to revalue PCPs, but I guess its a start.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Yes a lot of education comes with managing a chronic illness. I'm just saying that the patient presents to the PCP with it already. The system revolves around treating an illness sure but there's also the fact it's a money making machine. Hospitals push the screening for illnesses that are somewhat common and more importantly a higher yielding of treatments. This is not "big and bad", its just money. Now the ACA is trying to change and overhaul this. I think it affects physicians because hospitals see them as cash cows.

So what do you propose? Government mandated and scheduled hospital checks? "Health" is one's responsibility from the moment he or she has the faculties to be aware of it.

Your car mechanic is a good parallel for your doctor. Simple and routine maintenance is the responsibility of the owner, even if it is carried out by the mechanic. You can skip oil changes for 10,000 miles if you'd like, but that is on you (and.... that reminds me.... lol). I honestly don't know what we could do to curb this. People go to the doctor when they are sick, true. They also go for checkups. The prohibitive cost of checkups for some people keeps them from doing this, as does the general fostering of mistrust by alternative practitioners (and the minority slice of the pie of people who listen to them.... but they are out there... to keep this on topic). So they make big promises of rhetoricalized "health" with a smaller dollar figure and by the time you realize you were duped your family is matching wood with fabric types and wondering whether brass or silver fittings will match you better .

I am open to suggestions, because anything that keeps people from presenting with "40 years of living like an idiot"-itis and allows hospital staff to expend resources more towards those who are sick through no fault of their own is a plus in my book. People refuse to take responsibility That is basically where the entirety of this whole mindset and the problem of alternative practitioners comes from.

The education is out there, as are the willing physicians to educate people both in the clinic and in community outreach. What is lacking is monetary access for some, trust for others, and simple motivation for the rest. We could argue for a better PR representative for the profession as a whole, but don't blame it on our "approach". Our approach is flawless (yes, bold statement, and I stand by it). And before that is challenged... IMO just because something could be done doesn't mean it should be done. I am not applying this to anything in particular just now... Just presenting a thought on the idea of limited resources, diminishing returns, and the reality that nearly everything we do shortens our life in some fashion anyways. Some people are just way better at that than others.

I'd like to see the PCP reimbursements increase with the PPACA. Supposedly they will increase by 4-7%, but I'm waiting to see the results before I pass judgement. I don't know if its enough to revalue PCPs, but I guess its a start.

I agree. I want nothing to do with primary care, personally, but I see increases in PCP reimbursement as having a huge positive impact on public health as a whole.

 

[tehtruth]

instead of extolling the virtues of monsanto and their bt corn or "chicken little" warnings of how GMO is going to kill you, we should focus on the fact that rootworm is developing resistance to the bt toxin.

as natural processes dictate, when pest populations like rootworm become resistant to the bt toxin, they pass along this resistance to their progeny. the gene pool for bt resistant pests grows larger every year because the pests without this resistance die off (as monsanto intended).

given enough time (years/decades), it is possible that all of the country's corn rootworms may become resistant to the bt toxin (I am not saying all will, but it is enough concern to have "real" scientists writing letters to the EPA and USDA).

even if farmers use pesticides and other methods of pest control (as a supplement to bt toxin), the selection pressures that are induced on rootworm (and other pests) by a GMO crop are greater than the selection pressures induced by pesticides... über bugs result.

we could very well have massive destruction of crops if this bt toxin resistance is not taken seriously by monsanto (which, by a cursory search of google, it is not). heck, if I ran a profitable company like monsanto and was lucky enough to have nature provide me with another problem to solve (and make money on), I would want pests to develop bt toxin resistance so I could sell the latest and greatest GMO solution-this becomes especially true since monsanto posted record losses in 2011 and 2012 (gotta get that paper amirite).

i think we can all appreciate the parallel in medicine (antibiotic resistance) and should therefore be more cautious knowing the possible dangers of science creating über organisms (maybe one day we will have to face hordes of zombie corn).

also, I am pretty sure that he who walks behind the rows is GMO corn (it is okay if you don't get this reference... plenty of young folk haven't seen children of the corn).

my how a thread can come off the rails!



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dudeliness]

First of all, that video posted by didierdrogba is hilarious.
My dad is a chiropractor and I grew up taking homeopathics and herbs and getting adjustments for anything and everything that ailed me. I only went to the doctor for broken bones. Thankfully, I never had anything really serious to deal with, like a car accident lol, so I'm still alive and in good health.
Herbs can be useful for many different ailments, however many of these types of "practitioners" either don't follow any type of scientific studies to determine which herbs are good for which maladies, don't have any reliable way to diagnose what's actually going on with a sick person (applied kinesiology does NOT tell you if an infection is viral or bacterial), or some combination of those two.
That being said, I work as a medical courier for a hospital here in southern Utah. There is an ND here in town that occasionally sends titers to the lab for tests of some kind. Maybe somehow he is trying to use some actual scientific method in his work?

tl;dr
ND's are people too, but if you want to practice medicine go DO/MD. nuff said

 

[JGimpel]

 

[calvinhobbes]

i don't intend to start a flame war or anything like that..

I know that md and do are both pretty much interchangeable, and that people can become good doctors by doing either...

what about NDs? would any of you consider doing naturopathic medicine? I just heard of nd like right now, but i'm exactly sure what they are

Lol

 

[LovelyBRass]

Oh ok sorry. Just that most people on here don't know what they're getting themselves into. I'm not so sure there's anything physicians can really do to change the system. A lot of pre meds seem to think we're going to be healing people. If you're an orthopedics surgeon and you fix some guys knee, that's awesome. But in primary specialties its like what are you really doing?

You're trying to prevent that surgery from even happening with medical management so the LOL in NAD doesn't get unnecessary anesthesia, surgery, and rehab that will increase her morbidity and mortality.

 

[coolingglasses]

I can think of several things I would be before becoming an ND.

 

[SpecterGT260]

instead of extolling the virtues of monsanto and their bt corn or "chicken little" warnings of how GMO is going to kill you, we should focus on the fact that rootworm is developing resistance to the bt toxin.

as natural processes dictate, when pest populations like rootworm become resistant to the bt toxin, they pass along this resistance to their progeny. the gene pool for bt resistant pests grows larger every year because the pests without this resistance die off (as monsanto intended).

given enough time (years/decades), it is possible that all of the country’s corn rootworms may become resistant to the bt toxin (I am not saying all will, but it is enough concern to have "real" scientists writing letters to the EPA and USDA).

even if farmers use pesticides and other methods of pest control (as a supplement to bt toxin), the selection pressures that are induced on rootworm (and other pests) by a GMO crop are greater than the selection pressures induced by pesticides... über bugs result.

we could very well have massive destruction of crops if this bt toxin resistance is not taken seriously by monsanto (which, by a cursory search of google, it is not). heck, if I ran a profitable company like monsanto and was lucky enough to have nature provide me with another problem to solve (and make money on), I would want pests to develop bt toxin resistance so I could sell the latest and greatest GMO solution-this becomes especially true since monsanto posted record losses in 2011 and 2012 (gotta get that paper amirite).

i think we can all appreciate the parallel in medicine (antibiotic resistance) and should therefore be more cautious knowing the possible dangers of science creating über organisms (maybe one day we will have to face hordes of zombie corn).

also, I am pretty sure that he who walks behind the rows is GMO corn (it is okay if you don't get this reference... plenty of young folk haven't seen children of the corn).

my how a thread can come off the rails!



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Somehow this got overlooked....

Equating crop pests to nosocomial infections misses the point for a few reasons.

You are correct in stating that selection is increased through GMO crops. However, the idea of the "superbug" is something that most people don't really seem to understand and you are using it inappropriately here. When we talk about antibiotics and human infections, bugs that become "superbugs" may or may not have increased "virulence" depending on the definition you adhere to. The clinical courses tend to be poorer and therefore the bugs are more "malignant" (don't apply cancer to this word... FYI), but they are not necessarily more infectious. There are "superbugs" that are actually quite slow in progression and therefore what we can say is that selection does not necessarily drive up the "veracity" component of "virulence". More likely than not, resistance here brings us back to our baseline level of crop loss as the changes are no longer effective. To bring it back to nosocomial infections, plenty of people are colonized with MRSA without any serious pathology. The bugs pose a problem if and when they take root as part of a pathologic infectious process, and any increase in frequency is usually do to the overall increase in exposure of the immunocompromised within hospitals to hospital associated resistant bugs. It is a proximity issue more than one of developing bugs that are actually hyper infectious.

 

[hallowmann]

Somehow this got overlooked....

Equating crop pests to nosocomial infections misses the point for a few reasons.

You are correct in stating that selection is increased through GMO crops. However, the idea of the "superbug" is something that most people don't really seem to understand and you are using it inappropriately here. When we talk about antibiotics and human infections, bugs that become "superbugs" may or may not have increased "virulence" depending on the definition you adhere to. The clinical courses tend to be poorer and therefore the bugs are more "malignant" (don't apply cancer to this word... FYI), but they are not necessarily more infectious. There are "superbugs" that are actually quite slow in progression and therefore what we can say is that selection does not necessarily drive up the "veracity" component of "virulence". More likely than not, resistance here brings us back to our baseline level of crop loss as the changes are no longer effective. To bring it back to nosocomial infections, plenty of people are colonized with MRSA without any serious pathology. The bugs pose a problem if and when they take root as part of a pathologic infectious process, and any increase in frequency is usually do to the overall increase in exposure of the immunocompromised within hospitals to hospital associated resistant bugs. It is a proximity issue more than one of developing bugs that are actually hyper infectious.

Obviously as you point out "superbugs" is not really the right way to describe a potentially devastating effect on our crops. That being said, with a decrease in genetic variability in our crop production (which is the case as a result of GMO use from a single source), a single evolved parasite or blight could easily wipe out the majority of our crops, even past the "baseline level of crop loss", simply because pre-GMO, and specifically pre-GMO from primarily one source, there was much more genetic variability in the crops planted across the country/world. With widespread less genetic variability, the risk is much greater for a more devastating effect to the crop world.

Again, I don't have an issue with GMOs, but I agree that GMOs from primarily one source with limited genetic variability (because the same lines are not used all over, but they are used year after year, as opposed to normal breeding) could pose a threat in terms of wiping out more crops than pre-GMO crop loss.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Yeah, but that is really a moot point in the larger context of the overall debate. The argument essentially becomes "we should only grow according to this set of techniques that are insufficient for our needs now, rather than according to this other set of techniques that ARE sufficient due to the thread of insufficiency in the future".

That is.... eerily similar to the rationalization made by those who commit suicide. People just don't see it due to the differences in subject matter. Risk of tripping is rarely a valid excuse to keep from taking a step forward. We could just as easily wipe out the bugs as we have done with smallpox and (nearly) polio as await the random generation of some supremo superbug godzirra

 

[hallowmann]

Yeah, but that is really a moot point in the larger context of the overall debate. The argument essentially becomes "we should only grow according to this set of techniques that are insufficient for our needs now, rather than according to this other set of techniques that ARE sufficient due to the thread of insufficiency in the future".

That is.... eerily similar to the rationalization made by those who commit suicide. People just don't see it due to the differences in subject matter. Risk of tripping is rarely a valid excuse to keep from taking a step forward. We could just as easily wipe out the bugs as we have done with smallpox and (nearly) polio as await the random generation of some supremo superbug godzirra

Yeah, but the issue is to take very serious concerns like these and take steps to make them less likely. Again, I'm not advocating no GMOs, but perhaps requiring a certain level of genetic variability in the products over time or even making it easier for competing companies to actually exist and be successful would significantly reduce these risks. Perhaps much like the FTC puts limits on cell phone companies, we need more oversight in general for a relatively new technology like GMOs. I believe this is starting to happen, but it generally requires more education on the part of lawmakers (something that they are usually lacking in). Also, companies like Monsanto are pretty effective at lobbying against those measures, because ultimately it means more work for them and less money in the long run.

 

[Orthojoe]

Love this thread .. mainly because I am a graduate of Southwest college of naturopathic medicine . There are about 14 states that grant medical licenses but as stated the scope is different. You must also realize there are different ND degrees. There are 2 year online correspondence degrees (clayton college biggest one) and 4 year doctorate degrees (5 schools in US). I did the four year doctorate degree -similar structure to medical school with 2 year didactics and two years clinicals.I followed it up with an internship in utah then I started a pediatric practice. Did pediatrics for 3 years .. realized the stigma of being a naturopathic physician was tough so went to AZCOM (DO school) to continue my pediatrics route for just the "prestige" of the degree- but fell in love with ortho and recently matched ortho.

Long road! quite weird I must say too.

During naturopathic school I testified before many congressional sub-committees on granting primary care status to NDs (those who attend the 4 year schools - I was classified as PCP in Utah and had full rights).The curriculums with MD/DOs are virtually identical the first two years with addition of classes in naturopathic medicine. These NDs are much more scientific based, but still crazy in many ways. But to state they are qwacks is far reaching.. the two year degree NDs have no medical/licensing rights at all and it is mainly this group who are the nut jobs.

The problem is no post graduate training. If the 4 year ND programs affiliated themselves with hospitals for graduate training they would do well filling in for the PCP need of the future (similar to what the DOs did in the 50-60s after vietnam). I would rather have a licensed ND treat me than a PA/NP.

FYI - qwacks was a term applied to physicians who administered quicksilver (mercury) .. these were the mainstream physicians of the past not the homeopaths,naturopaths,osteopaths,etc..

 

[Didierdrogba]

Love this thread .. mainly because I am a graduate of Southwest college of naturopathic medicine . There are about 14 states that grant medical licenses but as stated the scope is different. You must also realize there are different ND degrees. There are 2 year online correspondence degrees (clayton college biggest one) and 4 year doctorate degrees (5 schools in US). I did the four year doctorate degree -similar structure to medical school with 2 year didactics and two years clinicals.I followed it up with an internship in utah then I started a pediatric practice. Did pediatrics for 3 years .. realized the stigma of being a naturopathic physician was tough so went to AZCOM (DO school) to continue my pediatrics route for just the "prestige" of the degree- but fell in love with ortho and recently matched ortho.

Long road! quite weird I must say too.

During naturopathic school I testified before many congressional sub-committees on granting primary care status to NDs (those who attend the 4 year schools - I was classified as PCP in Utah and had full rights).The curriculums with MD/DOs are virtually identical the first two years with addition of classes in naturopathic medicine. These NDs are much more scientific based, but still crazy in many ways. But to state they are qwacks is far reaching.. the two year degree NDs have no medical/licensing rights at all and it is mainly this group who are the nut jobs.

The problem is no post graduate training. If the 4 year ND programs affiliated themselves with hospitals for graduate training they would do well filling in for the PCP need of the future (similar to what the DOs did in the 50-60s after vietnam). I would rather have a licensed ND treat me than a PA/NP.

FYI - qwacks was a term applied to physicians who administered quicksilver (mercury) .. these were the mainstream physicians of the past not the homeopaths,naturopaths,osteopaths,etc..

So basically NDs get the same training as DO's except they replace our OMM component with some naturaopathic components? How are the scientific theories of things like homeopathy or herbal medicine defended in ND schools?

 

[fahimaz7]

Imho.. Nd>>>> md=do

 

[fahimaz7]

Love this thread .. mainly because I am a graduate of Southwest college of naturopathic medicine . There are about 14 states that grant medical licenses but as stated the scope is different. You must also realize there are different ND degrees. There are 2 year online correspondence degrees (clayton college biggest one) and 4 year doctorate degrees (5 schools in US). I did the four year doctorate degree -similar structure to medical school with 2 year didactics and two years clinicals.I followed it up with an internship in utah then I started a pediatric practice. Did pediatrics for 3 years .. realized the stigma of being a naturopathic physician was tough so went to AZCOM (DO school) to continue my pediatrics route for just the "prestige" of the degree- but fell in love with ortho and recently matched ortho.

Long road! quite weird I must say too.

During naturopathic school I testified before many congressional sub-committees on granting primary care status to NDs (those who attend the 4 year schools - I was classified as PCP in Utah and had full rights).The curriculums with MD/DOs are virtually identical the first two years with addition of classes in naturopathic medicine. These NDs are much more scientific based, but still crazy in many ways. But to state they are qwacks is far reaching.. the two year degree NDs have no medical/licensing rights at all and it is mainly this group who are the nut jobs.

The problem is no post graduate training. If the 4 year ND programs affiliated themselves with hospitals for graduate training they would do well filling in for the PCP need of the future (similar to what the DOs did in the 50-60s after vietnam). I would rather have a licensed ND treat me than a PA/NP.

FYI - qwacks was a term applied to physicians who administered quicksilver (mercury) .. these were the mainstream physicians of the past not the homeopaths,naturopaths,osteopaths,etc..

So ND's want to practice in the primary care setting with a full, unrestricted medical license that is the equivalent to a MD/DO? Please elaborate some on the identical curriculum, passing rates of USMLE 1 and 2 (as a ND), and the "much more scientific based" practice that these "practitioners" have.

Did you have a full medical license to practice in pediatrics? Full prescriptive and admission rights? If that's the case, I have no idea why you would go back and spend 7 years in medical school and residency for the "prestige" factor...


This looks a lot different than what I went through... (http://universitynaturalmedicine.org/college-natural-medicine/doctor-md/sample-curriculum/)

Module I – Medical Sciences
SCI 32 Human Anatomy & Physiology
SCI 401 Clinical Biochemistry
SCI 455 Basic Sciences (Human Biology, Histology, Embryology, Microbiology/Parasitology, Genetics, Immunology)
SCI 408 Pathology I

Module II – Natural Medicine Modalities
NUT 304 Clinical Nutrition
NM 303 Botanical Medicine
HM 305 Homeopathy I
 


NM 507 Functional Medicine
NM 402 Naturopathic Practice I

Module III – Integrated Medicine Diagnostics and Assessments
SCI 418 Holistic Blood Chemistry & Urine Lab Analysis
NM 503 Physical Examination & Diagnosis
IR 400 Iridology I
NM 307 Tissue Mineral and Heavy Metal Hair Analysis (optional)
PHM 608 Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology

Module IV – Natural Medicine Modalities
NM 401 Naturopathy: History & Practice (required for TN)
NM 309 Detoxification & Nature Cure
NM 310 Color Therapy (Diploma)
NM 311 Gastroenterology I & Colon Therapy
NUT 460 Holistic Nutrition
PT 407 Physiotherapeutic Modalities

Electives: (Requirements for ND)

HM 501 Homeopathy II
PSY 444 Introduction to Applied Counseling
PSY 402 Naturopathic Psychiatry
NM 406 Naturopathic Manipulations I
NUT 412 Cellular Nutrition/Oligo & Trace Elements
NM 502 Naturopathic Practice II
NM 506 Naturopathic Manipulations II
RAD 505 Radiological Analysis
LAW 418 Jurisprudence
NM 518 Naturopathic Womens Health
NM 403 Naturopathic Pediatrics

 

[NurWollen]

Love this thread .. mainly because I am a graduate of Southwest college of naturopathic medicine . There are about 14 states that grant medical licenses but as stated the scope is different. You must also realize there are different ND degrees. There are 2 year online correspondence degrees (clayton college biggest one) and 4 year doctorate degrees (5 schools in US). I did the four year doctorate degree -similar structure to medical school with 2 year didactics and two years clinicals.I followed it up with an internship in utah then I started a pediatric practice. Did pediatrics for 3 years .. realized the stigma of being a naturopathic physician was tough so went to AZCOM (DO school) to continue my pediatrics route for just the "prestige" of the degree- but fell in love with ortho and recently matched ortho.

Long road! quite weird I must say too.

During naturopathic school I testified before many congressional sub-committees on granting primary care status to NDs (those who attend the 4 year schools - I was classified as PCP in Utah and had full rights).The curriculums with MD/DOs are virtually identical the first two years with addition of classes in naturopathic medicine. These NDs are much more scientific based, but still crazy in many ways. But to state they are qwacks is far reaching.. the two year degree NDs have no medical/licensing rights at all and it is mainly this group who are the nut jobs.

The problem is no post graduate training. If the 4 year ND programs affiliated themselves with hospitals for graduate training they would do well filling in for the PCP need of the future (similar to what the DOs did in the 50-60s after vietnam). I would rather have a licensed ND treat me than a PA/NP.

FYI - qwacks was a term applied to physicians who administered quicksilver (mercury) .. these were the mainstream physicians of the past not the homeopaths,naturopaths,osteopaths,etc..

Wow, Orthojoe. What haven't you done? That sure is a long road. Did your previous training as an ND make the preclinical curriculum at med school any easier?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Love this thread .. mainly because I am a graduate of Southwest college of naturopathic medicine . There are about 14 states that grant medical licenses but as stated the scope is different. You must also realize there are different ND degrees. There are 2 year online correspondence degrees (clayton college biggest one) and 4 year doctorate degrees (5 schools in US). I did the four year doctorate degree -similar structure to medical school with 2 year didactics and two years clinicals.I followed it up with an internship in utah then I started a pediatric practice. Did pediatrics for 3 years .. realized the stigma of being a naturopathic physician was tough so went to AZCOM (DO school) to continue my pediatrics route for just the "prestige" of the degree- but fell in love with ortho and recently matched ortho.

Long road! quite weird I must say too.

During naturopathic school I testified before many congressional sub-committees on granting primary care status to NDs (those who attend the 4 year schools - I was classified as PCP in Utah and had full rights).The curriculums with MD/DOs are virtually identical the first two years with addition of classes in naturopathic medicine. These NDs are much more scientific based, but still crazy in many ways. But to state they are qwacks is far reaching.. the two year degree NDs have no medical/licensing rights at all and it is mainly this group who are the nut jobs.

The problem is no post graduate training. If the 4 year ND programs affiliated themselves with hospitals for graduate training they would do well filling in for the PCP need of the future (similar to what the DOs did in the 50-60s after vietnam). I would rather have a licensed ND treat me than a PA/NP.

FYI - qwacks was a term applied to physicians who administered quicksilver (mercury) .. these were the mainstream physicians of the past not the homeopaths,naturopaths,osteopaths,etc..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[genessis42]

I'm surprised this got sooo many responses
I was just asking a simple question

So..to sum it up, I think:
an MD practices in 50 states+most countries
a DO practices in 50 states+like 30-40 countries

an ND is like only 3 states basically

 

[Mr Kenobi]

I'm surprised this got sooo many responses
I was just asking a simple question

So..to sum it up, I think:
an MD practices in 50 states+most countries
a DO practices in 50 states+like 30-40 countries

an ND is like only 3 states basically

 

[NontradCA]

.

 

[Orthojoe]

I just got an infraction from an SDN mod concerning my April fools naturopathic joke(see above) SDN did this last year and it was weird seeing all these ND posts all of a sudden. Hmmmm???? Guess I got busted.

 

[NurWollen]

I just got an infraction from an SDN mod concerning my April fools naturopathic joke(see above) SDN did this last year and it was weird seeing all these ND posts all of a sudden. Hmmmm???? Guess I got busted.

You had me fooled. The SDN April Fool's stunt was obvious... you sir however had me. Well played. Well played.

 

[dudeliness]

I just got an infraction from an SDN mod concerning my April fools naturopathic joke(see above) SDN did this last year and it was weird seeing all these ND posts all of a sudden. Hmmmm???? Guess I got busted.

I thought you must have been joking, but why would you get an infraction for posting that when its obvious the mods are trolling US with the new ND and NARF threads.

 

[DrBumblebee]

...
FYI - qwacks was a term applied to physicians who administered quicksilver (mercury) .. these were the mainstream physicians of the past not the homeopaths,naturopaths,osteopaths,etc..

That was a nice info. Thank you, Orthojoe!

Funny thing on SDN is that pro-MDs accuse DOs of being a no-match to them but qwacks.

 

[SpecterGT260]

That was a nice info. Thank you, Orthojoe!

Funny thing on SDN is that pro-MDs accuse DOs of being a no-match to them but qwacks.

Not really, but continue on your baseless personal crusade.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Mehd School]

Listen, I'd be more than thrilled to accept a seat at just about any DO school in this country, but when I read that he went to a DO school for the prestige, I spit my coffee a little bit.

 

[Mehd School]

Funny thing on SDN is that pro-MDs accuse DOs of being a no-match to them but qwacks.

Sometimes pre-allo 'tis a silly place. But I think it's gotten better over the years. But, pre-osteo has certainly acted like the allo side of the fence is full of number hungry prestige pigs. Generalizations, generalizations. The ND crusade will bring down the DO/MD walls a little bit further, because we can both point and laugh at their "science".



But on a serious note, physicians are no longer the good guys in the US. We make uber phat moneys, and medical treatments are generally very expensive. People can't afford chemo-therapy for their uninsured uncle Jerry while the oncologist drives his fresh new benz to the office. This breeds resentment, and the ND's can be the guy screaming "Look at us! You can afford us! We can only afford to drive a used prius anyway!", and that's how a movement begins. That's also how Uncle Jerry dies. Hopefully the scientific community publicly squashes their apple juice remedies, and fast.

 

[487806]

I don't intend to start a flame war or anything like that..

I know that MD and DO are both pretty much interchangeable, and that people can become good doctors by doing either...

What about NDs? Would any of you consider doing naturopathic medicine? I just heard of ND like right now, but I'm exactly sure what they are

I was accepted into an ND/PhD program two weeks ago, and I am so thrilled! It's a wonderful opportunity and you get to study numerous interesting concepts in naturopathy and alternative medicine. Also, what's so exciting is that you get to disprove the common pseudoscientific "facts" in evidence-based medicine. Remember, drugs and vaccines are not the only remedy to a disease, so the best idea is to choose a route with minimal side-effects: natural remedies are the key.

 

[487806]

Imho.. Nd>>>> md=do

Thanks for the support!

 

[Orthojoe]

glad to have made you laugh a bit (you did see the april fools infraction post right?).. but that coffee up your nose is probably a good naturopathic treatment as coffee enemas are quite popular. The tannins are supposed to stimulate the gallbladder causing a detox release (still dont understand that physiologically)

florida couple addicted to coffee enemas
http://www.livescience.com/27011-coffee-enema-alcohol-enema.ht

 

[felix2929]

I guess im kind of late to the party but I think the only way to change a lot of these problems is by overhauling how we pay for healthcare. I think most people would take more responsibility for their own health if they had some more responsibility for paying for it.

So what do you propose? Government mandated and scheduled hospital checks? "Health" is one's responsibility from the moment he or she has the faculties to be aware of it.

 

[Sephy]

From what I understand there are 11 states that will "license" them. However, this term is variable. Having a license does not define scope. I wouldnt be surprised if Washington or Oregon had the broadest definitions of scope for them. However, they just simply do not (with potential rare exceptions) work in hospitals or actually manage healthcare. The vast majority of them run glorified vitamin shacks and push sham alternative treatments on people that either aren't really sick to begin with or aren't sick enough to obviously warrant real medical attention.

From what I understand, they are fairly well versed in nutrition, probably much better than your average physician is. That said, nutrition as a treatment modality is one of strikingly minimal returns. Sound medical nutrition advice is really limited to "stop stuffing your fat face with double half-pounder McArterycloggers fried in bacon grease and maybe, JUST MAYBE stop using the damn scooter to get yourself around in your weekly walmart visit". We start getting beyond that in people without food intolerances and we aren't really making much headway. You wanna eat lots of bell peppers because Dr. Oz told you it do something and stuff? Sure... whatever dude. Knock yourself out.

But these sham practitioners act like something magical is happening. When the gross ease of a normal baseline diet of non-gluttony is fractions of a statistically non-discernible % from some arbitrary "ideal" based on what cavemen used to eat before dying at 35 from other environmental factors (but hey, they didnt have IBS! ) I'm gunna say that those theoretical 4 minutes of my life I'm adding on are probably not worth the trouble

Let me shake your hand. Awesome.

And also, just because I can do this:

 

[MrChance2]

I thought that video at the start of the thread was just joking. But it is actually correct.

I just looked it up on Wikipedia and bolded some of the WTF parts.

"Dilutions
Main article: Homeopathic dilutions
Three logarithmic potency scales are in regular use in homeopathy. Hahnemann created the "centesimal" or "C scale", diluting a substance by a factor of 100 at each stage. The centesimal scale was favored by Hahnemann for most of his life. A 2C dilution requires a substance to be diluted to one part in 100, and then some of that diluted solution diluted by a further factor of 100. This works out to one part of the original substance in 10,000 parts of the solution.[77] A 6C dilution repeats this process six times, ending up with the original substance diluted by a factor of 100−6=10−12 (one part in one trillion or 1/1,000,000,000,000).

Higher dilutions follow the same pattern. In homeopathy, a solution that is more dilute is described as having a higher potency, and more dilute substances are considered by homeopaths to be stronger and deeper-acting remedies.[78] The end product is often so diluted as to be indistinguishable from the dilutant (pure water, sugar or alcohol).[11][79][80] There is also a decimal potency scale (notated as "X" or "D") in which the remedy is diluted by a factor of 10 at each stage.[81]
Hahnemann advocated 30C dilutions for most purposes (that is, dilution by a factor of 1060).[10] In Hahnemann's time, it was reasonable to assume the remedies could be diluted indefinitely, as the concept of the atom or molecule as the smallest possible unit of a chemical substance was just beginning to be recognized. The greatest dilution reasonably likely to contain even one molecule of the original substance is 12C.


This bottle contains arnica montana (wolf's bane) D6, i.e. the nominal dilution is one part in a million (10-6).
Critics and advocates of homeopathy alike commonly attempt to illustrate the dilutions involved in homeopathy with analogies.[82] Hahnemann is reported to have joked that a suitable procedure to deal with an epidemic would be to empty a bottle of poison into Lake Geneva, if it could be succussed 60 times.[83][84] Another example given by a critic of homeopathy states that a 12C solution is equivalent to a "pinch of salt in both the North and South Atlantic Oceans",[83][84] which is approximately correct.[85] One-third of a drop of some original substance diluted into all the water on earth would produce a remedy with a concentration of about 13C.[86][82][87] A popular homeopathic treatment for the flu is a 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name oscillococcinum. As there are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire observable universe, a dilution of one molecule in the observable universe would be about 40C. Oscillococcinum would thus require 10^320 more universes to simply have one molecule in the final substance.[88] The high dilutions characteristically used are often considered to be the most controversial and implausible aspect of homeopathy.[89]

 

[Instatewaiter]

this one actually doesn't bother me at all. my understanding is that a normal birth doesn't necessarily need doctor intervention (but obviously im a pre-med so my knowledge base is EXTREMELY minimal)

You also don't need a doctor to live your life... unless you get sick. Similarly, you don't need a doctor for your birth unless something goes wrong.

There was a recent lawsuit where Hopkins was sued because some ***** mother wanted to do a home birth. The midwife (unlicensed) had no idea what she was doing and there was a massive delay in getting her to real doctor. Hopkins was sued because since she had no prenatal care, it took roughly 1.5 hours to get a C section while they were getting prenatal labs drawn etc.